❌

Normal view

HKDC1-Mediated Polyamine Rewiring Drives Lenvatinib Resistance and Immune Escape in Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Clin Mol Hepatol. 2026 Mar 11. doi: 10.3350/cmh.2025.1269. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Lenvatinib resistance and immune exclusion limit outcomes in HCC. We hypothesized that metabolic rewiring orchestrates resistance to lenvatinib and PD-1 blockade.

METHODS: We established LS/LR HCC models and employed multi-omics (proteomics/RNA-seq), ChIP, luciferase, and RIP assays to map HKDC1 regulation. Tumor immunity was profiled by scRNA-seq, mIHC, and flow cytometry. SPD + lenvatinib efficacy was tested in cell lines, patient-derived organoids/xenografts. Tested therapy effect in an immunocompetent hydrodynamic HCC model with hepatocyte-specific Hkdc1 deletion; and analyzed a postoperative cohort (n = 40) treated with lenvatinib + PD-1.

RESULTS: HKDC1, upregulated in LR HCC, was transcriptionally activated by USF1 and promoted SMS-mediated polyamine rewiring. This impaired CD8⁺ T-cell metabolism, reversible by HKDC1 knockdown or spermidine (SPD). SPD synergized with lenvatinib, triggering autophagy and suppressing tumor growth in vitro and in vivo. High HKDC1 predicted poor response and survival in patients receiving lenvatinib + aPD-1.

CONCLUSIONS: A USF1/HKDC1/SMS axis couples polyamine metabolism to immune dysfunction and lenvatinib resistance. HKDC1 is a predictive biomarker and therapeutic node and support polyamine-axis modulation to sensitize HCC to lenvatinib plus PD-1 therapy.

PMID:41812646 | DOI:10.3350/cmh.2025.1269

What happens when reviewers receive AI feedback in their reviews?

arXiv:2602.13817v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI is reshaping academic research, yet its role in peer review remains polarising and contentious. Advocates see its potential to reduce reviewer burden and improve quality, while critics warn of risks to fairness, accountability, and trust. At ICLR 2025, an official AI feedback tool was deployed to provide reviewers with post-review suggestions. We studied this deployment through surveys and interviews, investigating how reviewers engaged with the tool and perceived its usability and impact. Our findings surface both opportunities and tensions when AI augments in peer review. This work contributes the first empirical evidence of such an AI tool in a live review process, documenting how reviewers respond to AI-generated feedback in a high-stakes review context. We further offer design implications for AI-assisted reviewing that aim to enhance quality while safeguarding human expertise, agency, and responsibility.
❌